Saturday, May 17, 2014

Reid displays no concern whatsoever over the many liberals, such as George Soros and Tom Steyer, who spend enormous amounts of money in the political field. Or the many unions that support Reid and his political party almost exclusively and who, as Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, spend far more on political campaigns than the Koch brothers.

Although the amendment sponsored by Udall and supported by Reid would limit fundraising and spending on political speech for Americans, there is one glaring exception in the amendment: It would not apply to the press.

The New York Times and MSNBC could continue to spend as much money, newsprint and airtime as they want supporting liberal candidates and attacking conservatives, but other non-media corporations would be strictly limited in what they could do, including conservative advocacy organizations such as the NRA and Heritage Action, which are nonprofits.

Candidates and ordinary Americans who wanted to fight back against the attacks of the liberal mainstream media would have their hands tied by a Congress filled with members who want to make sure individuals trying to unseat them (and their supporters) are strictly limited in the amount they could spend to publicly criticize them.

Reid seems to disagree with Benjamin Franklin, who wrote that "freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government." And for those who say that restricting the money that can be spent on political speech and activity is not the same as limiting speech, that is like saying that the government limiting the amount of newsprint a newspaper can buy does not limit the newspaper's speech.

It is a nonsensical argument — just like the arguments being made by Reid to cull the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights.